#3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths

Capsule:#3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths expands on the liberal concept of playing stupid (lying to oneself and others), introduced in the first essay of the series. The scoff reflex is examined in detail along with the Uncle Tom Syndrome, the noble lie, and a Solomon Asch study on self-interest versus group-interest. Then we conduct our own interactive study using the so-called Clinton budget surpluses of the late 1990s as our platform.

In Ideology Liberals Act Out as Rebellious Fourteen-year-olds

Details:#3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths is a fascinating look into the various aspects of truth, through definitions, studies, behavior examination, the role of peer pressure, and the two types of contemporary liberals – alpha and beta liberals, with their roles defined and broken down in regard to their respective influences as to what is accepted as a liberal truth.

Using the supposed Clinton budget surpluses of the late 1990s, the liberal reader is directly confronted with a choice between the fraudulent group-interest of liberal dogma and their own self-interest. On one side of the argument is the liberal truth in the form of a dogmatic mantra repeated by liberals for over a decade. On the other side are self-evident debt numbers that completely defeat that liberal mantra. The liberal reader is confronted with a choice between continuing to lie to themselves, or instead embracing a position of honesty with them self that, if accepted, refutes some of the basic principles necessary to remain a liberal.

Excerpts: ~Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. It begins with lying to oneself. Liberals are often aware that what they espouse is a lie, at least in the beginning, but continue to play along even with truisms [a self-evident truth] staring them in the face. They think it is noble to perpetuate the noble lie, because in their minds they are fighting evil. Eventually – and it may not take long – they will not even remember that their new truth began as a lie (or has since been proven to be a lie). Playing stupid becomes their identity on that issue. … The awakening is when you realize that your life has been run by beliefs that were never your own. They were someone else’s truths implanted in you. Not only were they someone else’s beliefs, they were frauds masquerading as truths. At the awakening, you will realize that these fraudulent beliefs have enslaved you to an ideology of subjugation that is a matrix of lies, half-truths and manipulations, but it is even more than this. It is not just what you believe – it is how you think that is repaired with the awakening. It is a realization that you have been playing stupid by lying to yourself for a very long time.~

Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)

[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]

• Mini critical thinking exercise

.

We have all experienced the rebellious fourteen-year-old teenager. They are narcissistic, egotistical, know-it-alls that can’t be told anything. They are never wrong. Everyone else is a moron if they don’t agree with them. All of their problems are someone else’s fault, and it is always someone else’s problem to solve. They are sure that everything desirable is achievable if everyone would only listen to them. They are quite simply, completely irrational, but don’t bother to tell them that – they think all adults are brain-dead idiots! Many of us have gone through that stage – some have never grown out of it. Have you grown out of your rebellious fourteen-year-old stage, American neighbor? Jus’ wonderin’…

This essay will introduce principles regarding the intellectual mechanics of how a liberal can consistently and systematically play stupid. Tell me, American neighbor, whether these numbers progressively become smaller or larger: 5,413 | 5,526 | 5,656 | 5,674.ab

• The liberal scoff reflex

.

So what is your response to the previous two essays, American neighbor? Have I appealed to your intellect? If we could converse directly on the issues presented, could we have an intellectual exchange of ideas? Could we co-examine the reasoning within each issue and leave out the ideology? Or has your liberal defense response been activated? Of course, I don’t expect you to respond to that last question, because obviously you don’t even know what a liberal defense response is, so let me explain.

First though, it is a very good sign that you are reading this essay at all. Your curiosity is a positive signal that you may have developed, or are beginning to develop beyond the typical programmed liberal defense response stage. That would mean you are capable of rational dialog. We could actually have a civil discussion. This is very encouraging evidence that your liberal conditioning is not deep and can be completely removed.

But if your instinctive response is to simply wave off what I have presented and reject it with a scoff, this is a sure sign of your liberal conditioning and resultant paranoia, and it obstructs our ability to interact on an intellectual level. On a philosophical level this is known as being an ideologue (as used in a negative connotation). An ideologue always hears what he wants to hear, but never hears what he does not want to hear. You are an ideologue when you refuse to allow yourself to examine that which challenges your own beliefs. Any ideology can produce ideologues, but liberalism is saturated with them. In fact, liberalism cannot exist without them. The scoff reflex is a base instinct of liberal self-preservation triggered by an ingrained paranoia to prevent facts and reason from upsetting the liberal conditioning they suffer from. Let me repeat something I wrote in essay one, American neighbor:

“I sincerely wish to help you understand how programmed liberalism hampers your life. I will presume that you are at least somewhat aware of most current and historic political and societal issues. I will appeal to you as a critical thinker. As a critical thinker I will presume you are intellectually capable of following reasoned arguments. I will also presume you are not a scoffer who simply waves off counterarguments with no analytical assessment. Basically a scoffer is a know-it-all who thinks he has nothing to learn – sort of like a rebellious fourteen-year-old who can’t be told anything. I am afraid I have nothing to offer liberal scoffers and feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, as is true with dogmatic scoffers of any kind, without an attitude adjustment both rebellious fourteen-year-olds and liberal scoffers are beyond reason or help.”

Now, I admit that my conclusion was a little harsh. It was for shock value, hoping to get you to concentrate on my arguments instead of skimming over them with the glazed, upturned eyes of a scoffer or rebellious fourteen-year-old. Let me repeat, I want to appeal to you as a critical thinker:

~ “Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking that aims to take the reasoning we all do naturally to a higher level. It is the art of analyzing and evaluating with the goal of improving thought. When making a decision, it is the difference between weighing information to come to a logical conclusion and making snap judgments without understanding the information.”~ [yetdfgv, 3bh4wx]ac

Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.

• Scoffer = ideologue

.

A scoffer or ideologue is the opposite of a critical thinker. Ideologues are lazy and fearful. They don’t invest in the ideas they embrace and defend. Whereas critical thinkers earn each doctrine they hold through hard work. You are scoffing when you respond to any particular issue with a snarky, holier-than-thou attitude that shuts down dialog. [*7lq8ww4] You and I must be able to interact as mutually respected equals, American neighbor. If you cling to this defensive attitude that smacks of self-righteousness, your ability to genuinely relate to what you are reading will be irreparably hampered. You know when you are being a scoffer, American neighbor. You certainly know when you are being snarky. This is your decision to make. Can we have a pleasant intellectual interaction? Do you have this ability, American neighbor? Unfortunately my experience with liberals is that many are just not capable of civil intellectual discourse. (This by itself should make a huge statement to you about the deficiency of the affected liberal mind, American neighbor.) It may take an extreme amount of conscious exertion on your part. You will have to concentrate on resisting your conditioned instinct-like scoff reflex. Do you think you can do this, American neighbor? A hint that may help is for you to check your emotions at the door, so to speak. Focus on the text to the exclusion of your emotional reactions to what you read. Focus on your Mr. Spock demeanor. Mr. Spock is not an ideologue and he never scoffs. He is a critical thinker. Remember your third person analysis. Think of yourself as an alien who has come to earth on a mission to critically examine America’s ideological arguments. Your assignment is not to pronounce which ideology is correct, but to dispassionately and analytically assess the evidence of each issue. When I present you with an ideological dilemma it is not your job to prove your liberal ideology. It is your job to determine what the contextual investigation combined with critical analysis of the issue demonstrates. A contextual investigation involves discovering all relevant circumstances and evidence pertaining to an identified issue. Then critical analysis provokes questions whose answers will lead to a conclusion. Focus on developing these results, not the ideology. Each time you allow your liberal ideology to intrude into our discussion you are acting like an ideologue and are obstructing your deprogramming. Scoffing off counterarguments is just another sign of compulsive liberal paranoia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.ad

• Avoiding the scoff

.

If you find you have read a paragraph and realize you have lost your focus on the issue being discussed and are instinctively scoffing it off, go back and read it again. If you find yourself skimming over text, stop, check your emotions, and go back and purposely and carefully read what you skipped. Skimming or skipping over text is a sign of fear and non-commitment. Again, focus on your Mr. Spock persona and third person analysis. I am assuming you are committed to reading the N.C. Essay Series for your own benefit. (But again, if you are here on some noble quest to somehow prove that I am wrong and/or motivated by evil, then go right ahead – playing stupid with yourself is a sure sign of a deficient liberal mindset.)

Don’t be afraid to think through the evidence and reasoning presented. It is the only way to learn and genuinely progress. Be honest with me, American neighbor, or at least be honest with yourself. Be aware of how you read this essay (remember, the N.C. Essay Series is about attitude). Do you just gloss over the challenging parts of an argument? If on an issue we have just discussed I asked you to make my argument for me in your own words without any sarcasm or spin, could you dispassionately do it? This will address whether you have paid attention and understood my points, and whether you are serious or not. Can you specifically pick out the points you object to? Can you write out your objection in a reasoned, methodical counterargument without any ‘tude? If you can’t and you must resort to snarky rebuttals, you don’t have a reasoned counterargument. Be aware that the scoff reflex will also attempt to cover itself by rationalizing that it does not exist – and by extension that my reasoning is not worthy of being considered. This is the very definition of an ideologue! By thinking this way you are not being honest with yourself, American neighbor. You are simply acting like a programmed liberal. Have you scoffed at previous parts of these first three essays, American neighbor? Did you read every point about Ted Kennedy in the previous essay? Or did you skip ahead sneering it off as boring, unnecessary or “all lies”? Did you read every motivation quote by liberals about conservatives and Republicans? Or did you dismiss them as trivial or distortions? Did you persist through the whole list of liberal evils? Or did you just scoff them off as irrelevant or “garbage”? Then go back and reread them, American neighbor, reread from the beginning. Check your emotions at the door and start again. You are not here to be entertained, and you are not here to pass judgment, but to learn. Remember what I said above: Critical thinkers earn each doctrine they hold through hard work. Do some of my points or lists create anxiety in you? Good – they should. Deal with it! Sometimes my points must be made with large volumes of examples – I don’t want you to think my points are trivial because I only use a few examples. You must read every last word. If you allow yourself, you will learn more from the N.C. Essay Series about yourself and the world around you than any other books you will read in your entire life. (But of course if it is a rebellious fourteen-year-old reading this essay that is not here to seriously read and learn, or that thinks they are special and some sort of exception, then I don’t expect them to bother with my advice. They are obviously much smarter, much more read, much more thoughtful, much more observant, and much more researched about all of this than me – I’ll be looking forward to reading their essay series on how liberalism is so great when they get around to putting down their Xbox and writing it. [/sarcasm])ae

• Principle – scoff reflex

.

So we have now discovered another principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

Are you even now chafing at this discussion, American neighbor. Are you offended? Do you think I am talking down to you? This too would be part of your programmed instinct-like scoff reflex. It will tell you that I have been condescending and you have been insulted and therefore a civil and reasoned response is unnecessary. Remember, American neighbor, I did say that even though the N.C. Essay Series deals with many important societal issues, they are only the tools that I use to illustrate the errant principles of liberalism. Let me repeat, American neighbor, the N.C. Essay Series is primarily about liberal attitude, and liberal attitude has a certain amount of ugliness to it. Unfortunately, when I hold a mirror up to you this ugly liberal attitude will occasionally display itself. It will do neither of us any good if you go stomping off in a scoffing huff. Really, it all boils down to whether you view yourself as a civilized person or not. By civilized I mean, can you be civil? So, are you civilized, American neighbor? Earlier I promised to be civil to you throughout the N.C. Essay Series. Can you reciprocate?af

.

Bewildered with Misinformation

You must be willing and able to ignore and overcome your scoff response in order to continue with the attitude of a critical thinker – remember Mr. Spock and your third person analysis. I am going to explain how programmed liberalism originated, how it came to dominate society, how you were afflicted with it, how to recognize its operation in yourself and others, how it hampers your life, and how you can instead embrace your core value of liberty. You have been bewildered with misinformation that has produced in you a bad attitude – a contemporary liberal attitude. I am going to deluge you with undeniable reality, American neighbor. I am going to overwhelm you with facts and reason to the point where your liberalism goes b-zzzt and self-destructs. This is why it is important that you read every word – intently! After all, as we concluded in the first essay, it is highly likely that you are not actually a liberal, but just think and act as though you are a liberal because of your societal conditioning. Can you be a critical thinker and reject your naturally ingrained scoff reflex? If so, the N.C. Essay Series can definitely help you. And I will encourage you throughout as well, American neighbor. You won’t be alone in your fight. Good luck…

(So if you are serious about this I salute you, American neighbor. I know this is not easy. Serious learning is serious work, and having your deficiencies so blatantly pointed out to you makes it all the more difficult. Remember this is not your fault and I am not here to attack you – I’m here to help. You’re here to get help. Go back and reread whatever you may have skimmed over in the first couple of essays. Make an asterisk in the margin or a line so you know where to rejoin our discussion after you have caught back up. Here, I’ll do it for you.)ag

*****

• Self-interest is about preserving, maintaining and bettering one’s self

.

Do you know what self-interest is, American neighbor? Everyone lives their lives with self-interest. It is for a healthy self-interest that a person reaches out in friendship. It is self-interest that drives a person to go to college and to pursue a career. It is for self-interest that one seeks a mate. It is even for self-interest that one rakes the leaves in the fall, and regularly brushes one’s teeth. Quite simply, a healthy self-interest is about preserving, maintaining and bettering one’s self. For our purposes it is also a measure of each person’s personal tipping point between liberalism and conservatism. How you treat yourself (your self-interest) defines whether you are a contemporary liberal or a contemporary conservative. The strength of your self-interest is the basis of your personal motivation. This gets back to our original question from essay one about whether you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life or not. Even as you see yourself as a liberal you likely answered that you would prefer to direct your own life, but in effect as a liberal you have actually given the direction of your thinking over to others. See for yourself, American neighbor.ah

• A study of self-interest

.

In the 1950’s Princeton social psychologist Solomon Asch illustrated in a study that many people will conform to a group viewpoint even if they disagree with that viewpoint and it is against their own self-interest to do so. [yaul9ks, b2f4z] A group of collaborating participants and one unwitting subject who was unaware that the other participants were collaborating, were asked to identify two lines of equal length drawn on cards mixed with other lines of differing lengths. The collaborating participants in each test group were first secretly instructed to on specific occasions choose two lines of unequal length and insist that they were the equal lines. Asch found that only about one-third of the singled out subjects consistently stood up for the plainly obvious conclusion that the collaborators were wrong in their choice of lines. In other words, two out of three subjects could not consistently stand up for the self-evident truth that was clearly on the board in front of them when pressured by the other secretly collaborating participants in each group.ai

• Uncle Tom Syndrome

.

This capitulation is known as Uncle Tom Syndrome [y9t8wmz] where a subject feels threatened and submits to demands in order to thwart the threat (exacerbated by the 800 pound gorilla in the corner that the two selected lines don’t match). In this case the subject complies with the group to alleviate the threat of being singled out. In a more practical sense this is a description of group-interest over self-interest, American neighbor. A healthy self-interest would be for the subject to preserve their own integrity by standing up for the self-evident truth against the group pressure to accept what is obviously untrue. Many subjects willingly sacrificed their own integrity to remain harmonious with the group and so willingly allowed themselves to be manipulated. They each became their own Uncle Tom. Each capitulating subject made a political decision to conform (play stupid) along with the group by aligning with what the group purported to be correct. Politically the majority’s decision made it feel correct even though this was at odds with the plainly obvious reality. This is how programmed liberalism works. Through an abandonment of healthy self-interest to unhealthy group-interest what is obviously untrue can be comfortably accepted as truth. This directly relates to our first liberal principle that states: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Think about this, American neighbor. In Solomon Asch’s study two out of three subjects capitulated to the collaborating group at some point. That means that just on the societal odds alone there was a two out of three chance you and I would be born to end up as an Uncle Tom to some extent. And look at me – I was a liberal. And here you are – a liberal. The luck of the draw was against us, American neighbor.aj

• Conducting our own study – Defining deficit, surplus and debt

.

So let’s conduct some critical thinking exercises with our own little study, American neighbor. Put on your Mr. Spock demeanor and third person analysis. First we must define a budget deficit, a budget surplus, and debt. For our purpose the Wikipedia definition will do:

~A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus. Debt is essentially an accumulated flow of deficits.~ [6mat3yp]

Here is a little more detailed explanation from the University of Colorado at Boulder under Principles of Macroeconomics:

~A deficit refers to the difference between what the government spends each year and government revenues. If annual spending exceeds revenues then a deficit is present. The national debt refers to the accumulation of deficits over time. If there is a deficit, the debt will increase, while a surplus will reduce the debt.~ [6wp6xtu]

TreasuryDirect states:

~One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.~ [yawupw5]

DaveManuel.com agrees:

~Think of debt as accumulated deficits. If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year.~ [p3buhxa]

If those aren’t authoritative enough here is what The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics says:

~Government debt is the stock of outstanding IOUs issued by the government at any time in the past and not yet repaid. … The deficit is negative whenever the value of outstanding debt falls; a negative deficit is called a surplus.~ [73fpdha]

Yahoo! Finance:

~DEFICIT: The amount by which spending exceeds revenue during a budget year. When a government spends more than it collects in tax revenue, it runs a deficit for that budget year. DEBT: A build-up of annual deficits. A government that runs a deficit each budget year must borrow to meet expenses. In doing so, it accumulates a debt.~ [k4tj76b]

Economics Help:

~A Budget surplus occurs when tax revenue is greater than government spending. Therefore, the government can use the surplus revenue to pay off the national debt.~ [nzqjsew]

Pretty simple, huh? You run a government. Your tax revenues amount to $10 for the first year, but you spend $11, so your deficit and debt is $1. You do the same thing in the second year. Your deficit is again $1. When you add the deficit of $1 from the first year to the $1 deficit of the second year you now have a debt of $2. So let’s say your debt after five years is $5. In the sixth year you have a $1 surplus. You subtract that $1 surplus from your $5 debt and now the debt goes down to $4 after six years. So, if you have a deficit your overall debt increases by the amount of the deficit. If you have a surplus your overall debt decreases by the amount of the surplus. So let’s look at some real world numbers: [38nmoq, 2werbr]ak

• Graph – U.S. Total National Debt

.

Here we have 800 pound gorilla lines representing the amount of national debt in trillions of dollars for the American government as the deficits were added to it each year. I have employed some liberals to play the role of the collaborating group and you will play the role of the subject, American neighbor. As a collaborating group the other liberals have been secretly instructed to insist that the three lines representing the years 1998 to 2000 are actually getting progressively shorter because supposedly there was a surplus for those years. (Remember, surpluses reduce the debt.) You as the subject of our little study must now make your choice. Do you agree with the collaborating liberal group (will you play stupid along with them) or do you accept what your own eyes plainly tell you, American neighbor? Are the lines 1998, 99 and 00 getting progressively longer or shorter? Is the debt going higher or lower each year? How important to you is your self-interest, American neighbor? Will you hold on to your integrity and resist the pressure to conform to group-interest, or perhaps what might be better thought of as groupthink? Or will you submit to the pressure, and sacrifice your integrity for the sake of conforming with your liberal soul mates and allow yourself to be manipulated by them? Perhaps a specific definition of groupthink will clarify the situation.al

• Groupthink – definition

.

~Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.~ – originator of the term, William H. Whyte [6omfc]

I will add to clarify that groupthink does not necessarily demand that group values be right and good, only that they be seen to be right and good. But let’s drill down a little deeper. Groupthink is a result of a decision to conform with the group, so groupthink is a resultant condition. Often the groupthink of liberalism is a result of deception, but more often it is a result of playing stupid – a deliberate decision to lie to oneself. It is the decision to knowingly and willingly accept two unequal lines as equal (or longer lines as shorter), but it is not a sort of a wink and nod decision where everybody in the group is in it for a lark. It is a calculated perversion of one’s own thinking to accept a lie as truth at any cost – even one’s self-interest. No one in the group ever acknowledges that anyone in the group may be playing stupid. To be in the group one must play along with the lie accepted as truth without a hint of acknowledgement that one knows that the two lines are unequal.am

• So-called Clinton surpluses

.

I am sure you are well aware that our little study is no fictitious example, American neighbor. The Clinton administration claimed to have had surpluses in each of the three years from 1998 to 2000. President Clinton himself claimed in September of 2000:

~ “This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States” … Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.~ [2c7wnh2]

It seems that even Bill Clinton accepts that a surplus reduces debt, but my question is this: Where are the reductions? For over a decade the orthodox media and contemporary American liberals have accepted this groupthink claim and carried the water on this fallacy, and unfortunately many conservatives have been fooled into acquiescence as well. In fact I have only ever heard or read of two liberals ever objecting to the claim of Clinton surpluses (more later). You can see this is a fallacy, can you not, American neighbor? The debt went up EVERY year. There were NO surpluses. Go back and look at the definitions given above. See for yourself what government debt means. If you still have doubts, I challenge you to find a definition of surplus where the total debt goes up. Debt is an accumulation of deficits, minus any surpluses. Bill Clinton used this very definition. But once again, the debt NEVER went down. There were NO surpluses. Read these links: [*5u7zvo, *mx3yjo, *363mw7o, *252bpxg]an

• Encyclopedias & fact checkers

.

Oh sure, you can go find innumerable liberal and orthodox media websites (sorry for the redundancy) that insist that Bill Clinton produced surpluses (and even some conservative sites). The Wikipedia page referred to above later contradicts its own definitions of deficit, surplus and debt with a chart supposedly showing surpluses for 1998 to 2001. The FactCheck.org website provides succinct definitions:

~The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.~ [3cqjd53]

This exactly parallels Bill Clinton’s statement and our definitions above. Knowing that they have this definition and without looking at their linked page, one would naturally figure that FactCheck.org probably has a chart posted similar to ours with the “total amount the government owes” from their definition for each year of the Clinton administration, clearly illustrating that the debt increased each and every year and so concluding that there were no surpluses. But (surprise!), FactCheck.org drank the groupthink Kool-Aid as well. They actually turned their own definition into an 800 pound gorilla. Instead they post some self-serving, meaningless CBO chart that by itself tells only a fraction of the story, and concludes that there were indeed surpluses. But who are you going to believe – Wikipedia and FactCheck.org who wittingly or unwittingly drank the groupthink Kool-Aid and ignored there own 800 pound gorilla definitions, or what you can see for yourself, American neighbor? Here is some wisdom that may help:

Kool-Aid – even fact-checkers get thirsty

~ “A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.”~ – Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

I would add that a heretic possesses a healthy dose of self-interest and is more than willing to stand up to unhealthy groupthink. The heretic can see the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room and acknowledges it. I defy you to find a website that claims surpluses and also shows the national debt totals going down for those years. The Wikipedia page doesn’t. And FactCheck.org certainly doesn’t. Both are testaments to how incredibly effective and blinding liberal programming is. No doubt the authors and editors think of themselves as quite objective, factual and intellectual in their assessments, but they cannot see the 800 pound gorillas that they themselves have created that are virtually beating them over the head to get their attention! I have searched through many sites claiming surpluses, but not once have I seen any of them display the national debt totals as going down (although some make the claim without displaying the numbers, like FactCheck.org and Wikipedia). Right about now you should be asking yourself this, American neighbor: Using FactCheck.org as a canary in the coalmine, do you think that they are just so damned incompetent that they can’t follow their own definitions to an accurate conclusion? Or do you think that they are trying to bamboozle you into accepting that their two unequal lines that have been selected in secret are actually equal? But does it really matter which is the case, American neighbor? Either way if you listen to them you will have to sacrifice your own personal self-interest and integrity to their selfish manipulations.

Go ahead and do your own internet search for >Clinton surplus< [34xlhav] and you’ll find thousands of websites claiming surpluses, but notice that they conveniently NEVER show you a chart of the national debt totals for those years. Do not be confused when plain “public debt” is referred to – it is only the “national debt” (also known as “gross federal debt” or “gross national debt” or “total federal debt” or “total national debt” or “outstanding public debt” or “national public debt”) that matters for this issue. (Remember our definitions.) For reasons unknown these terms have been mixed together. What is important to distinguish is that plain old “public debt” is only a fraction of “national debt”. The numbers I listed above are “total federal debt” which include all intragovernmental debt obligations (“public debt” does not – I’ll explain more about this later.) For instance FactCheck.org attempts to justify their position with this explanation:

~The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton~

The “public” debt, or what FactCheck.org refers to as “debt the government owes to the public” is NOT the “total amount the government owes” from their very own definition! Again – “public debt” only refers to a fraction of the “national debt”. All that matters is the TOTAL national debt – if that doesn’t go DOWN there was NO surplus. (If FactCheck.org changes its linked page above without reference to their previous error here is the same page with the definition, and also the last claim that I quoted from them as collected by the Internet Archive [2eft85v] (They have already changed the title and address at least once.)) The fact of the matter is that the fraction of the total debt not counted in the public debt went up more than the public debt went down, so hence, deficits and more total debt. Think about this, American neighbor. Using FactCheck.org’s claim of a surplus (and liberals’ and the CBO’s) using only the fractional “public debt” for their rationalization, the American government can end up producing a “Clinton surplus” while still borrowing itself into further total debt! How irrational is that? Or looked at in our vernacular, how playing stupid is that?ao

• Truisms, truths & liberalisms

.

Do you know the difference between a truth and a truism, American neighbor? A truth is something that is purported to be true, but a truism is more. A truism is a truth that is self-evident – a type of axiom. (I am not referring to the cliché side of the definition, but instead to a determinative action leading to a conclusion.) If I tell you that there is a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table, the asserted truth is that there is a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table – according to me. It becomes self-evident for you – a truism – when you count the stack and confirm that there is indeed a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table. You then have determined a conclusion. Before you do this my ‘truth’ is but an assertion and nothing more. My ‘truth’ may or may not be true. It may be an opinion not based on fact, but presumption, or even deception. In law this is known as a simplex dictum; an unproved or dogmatic statement. You can only be sure when you turn my truth into a truism for yourself by counting the number of sheets. However, there is no precise antonym for the word truism, so here I would like to coin a new definition for the word ‘liberalism’ and fill a gap in the English language. In a loose sense of the word, a liberalism would be to take a liberty with something, usually meaning to stretch something beyond its reality, like a little white lie, or even a full-blown malicious fraud. For instance, you ask me for the score of the baseball game last night. As a Yankees fan I taunt you as a Red Sox fan with a response that the Yankees slaughtered the Red Sox last night, when in fact they only beat them by a couple of runs, but I know you don’t know that. I take a liberty with the score to get in a friendly dig at you. This is, in the vernacular of the N.C. Essay Series, what I call taking a liberty with the truth, a ‘liberalism’ (it is just a happy coincidence that it parallels the ideological word ‘liberalism’ as well). But more than that, a ‘liberalism’ is the opposite of a truism. Whereas a truism is an examined claim that turns out to be a self-evident truth, a liberalism is an examined claim that turns out to be a self-evident fallacy. The precise truth is that the Yankees did win but it wasn’t a slaughter. I took a liberty with the truth and produced a liberalism. The self-evident fraud, or liberalism, becomes evident to you when you later look at the box score of the game.

Now my little white lie about the score of the game – a liberalism – was of no important consequence, just a bit of fun, but a liberalism can also be more serious. Imagine if those supposed twenty sheets were copies of an important document for a presentation to a board meeting and I only made you fifteen copies because we were both competing for the same promotion and I wished to make you appear incompetent. You would look like a fool when you went to pass out your important documents to those twenty board members during your presentation. It would have been better for you to have confirmed my claim of truth as a truism before walking into that meeting rather than discovering my truth was a liberalism only when it was time to distribute them.

The truth is that there are two lines out of many that are equal in length, but the collaborators insist that two unequal lines are the equal ones. This is their ‘truth’ – they have all agreed to play stupid together. The truism is that when you examine all of the lines you can determine for yourself which two lines are self-evidently equal and that they are not the two lines that the collaborators have chosen as their ‘truth’. After examining all of the lines their ‘truth’ has now for you become a ‘liberalism’ – a fraud. It is self-evident to you that their two lines are unequal. We can then surmise one of two things about a liberalism. Either a liberalism is a deliberate fraud where the collaborators agree to defraud the subject, or the collaborators themselves have been deceived into thinking that their two lines are equal (or it could be a mix of knowing and ignorant collaborators). In either case though, they are promoting a liberalism as though it was true and are either playing stupid or aren’t playing.

In life truisms are always more reliable than truths, because truisms are self-evident and truths are simply taken on faith. When a supposed truth is presented to you from a source you do not have absolute confidence in, it is always in your self-interest to discover what is self-evident. Only then, by fulfilling your self-interest (preserving, maintaining and bettering one’s self) can you confirm whether the so-called truth is actually a truism or a liberalism. It is in your self-interest (the preservation of your integrity) to judge for yourself which lines are equal in length and not just take the word of the collaborators as truth. (Incidentally this is why I use internet links for my citations in the N.C. Essay Series and insist that you at the very least examine the ones identified with an *. I don’t want you to have to rely on my claims as truths. I want you to investigate for yourself and see that my truths are also truisms. This is where your Mr. Spock demeanor with third person analysis again shows its benefit.)ap

• Principles that encourage liberalisms

.

We have recently learned that liberals have motives that encourage them to take a liberty with the truth:

There are two elements of why liberal truths when examined turn out to be self-evident frauds. The first is because they are deliberately created to be frauds. The second is that often for liberals, the truth is what they want to be true. They desire that the truth lines up with the above two principles, and many more. Remember, liberal truths are created by collaborators and manipulators. They insist that two lines that are self-evidently not equal are equal. Collaborators are radical leftists (progressive-fascists) who consider the advancement of their goals more important than any honest, self-evident truth. Saul Alinsky, a most noted radical manipulator who literally wrote the book on strategies for the left, said this in his book Rules for Radicals (the organizer he refers to is the head collaborator):

~ “An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations.”~

~ “The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”~

~ “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means…”~

Or in other words, the collaborator should lie (play stupid) as need demands when fighting the war against evil. Although Alinsky’s book was aimed at community activism, many of his principles have been wholeheartedly embraced by the liberal elite in America. For example, Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky, and Barack Obama was mentored by acolytes of Alinsky. It is hardly a coincidence that Alinsky’s radicalism surfaced into contemporary liberal thought about the same time that liberals were evolving into the defining group described by Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It then should not surprise us that liberal truths when inspected turn out to be self-evident frauds, or as I term them, liberalisms. So when liberals claim that there were surpluses from 1998 to 2000 and they use this so-called truth as a demagogic political weapon, it would probably be a good idea to do a little research to see exactly what is self-evident. As is usual with practically all liberal so-called truths, when scrutinized they turn out to be liberalisms, and as mentioned above, it is not unusual for conservatives who do not search out the self-evident truth for themselves to be hooked into the liberal assertion as well, also touting it as a so-called truth, or at least unchallengingly accepting it as such. This is another reason why the N.C. Essay Series is beneficial for more than just liberals. We are also examining truths and determining truisms from liberalisms, something even many conservatives have not done with many issues. Here is an interesting, parallel explanation with examples of our new meaning for the word liberalism: [*782x4z3]aq

• Illustrating our study

.

How are you doing fighting your scoff reflex, American neighbor? Have you just scoffed off what I have shown you? The collaborators are a group of scoffers. Groupthink depends on the liberal scoff reflex. They are relying on you to drop your self-interest and this silly Mr. Spock logic stuff, scoff at those increasingly lengthening lines and instead conform to their fallacy – a liberalism. In fact their selfish desire for power over you demands that you play stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated by them. Perhaps your decision might be easier if I were to explain how groupthink came up with these supposed surpluses, and how in the real world there were no surpluses, only more deficits and increasing debt.

You have an annual income of $100,000.

You spend $80,000 of your $100,000 budget and are left with an apparent surplus.

$100,000 – $80,000 = $20,000 surplus

But you also spent $30,000 from your line of credit on your house.

Total incoming money: $100,000 + $30,000 = $130,000

Total outgoing money: $80,000 + $30,000 = $110,000

So it still seems like a $20,000 surplus: $130,000 – $110,000 = $20,000

But you still owe the $30,000 line of credit: $20,000 – $30,000 = -$10,000

So what at first seemed like a $20,000 surplus actually turns out to be a $10,000 deficit.

Now, American neighbor, if you were to go to some snake oil salesman with your budget numbers I am sure he would more than gladly agree that you do indeed have a $20,000 surplus, “Just the right amount to buy this here Brooklyn Bridge.” But if you were to go to any eighth grader they would give you the bad news that there is no surplus and that you actually have a deficit of $10,000.ar

• Two sets of books

.

The government plays the same sort of game as the snake oil salesman with the federal budget and trust fund obligations (money borrowed from the trust funds – also known as intragovernmental holdings or intragovernmental debt). Essentially they have two sets of accounting books. One is the book with the phantom surpluses. It is this book that they use for talking about the budget to the American people where they do not include the trust fund obligations that are in their second book. It is this sort of deceptive government accounting that Bill Gates said was “so blatant and extreme,” that “Enron would blush”. [5s6asat] The Clinton administration claimed it had surpluses when in fact it was no more than accounting tricks. That’s like you not including what you owe on your line of credit in your end of year budget – you just put it in your second accounting book and claim a $20,000 surplus from the first book. When you look at both Clinton era accounting books so that all government income, borrowing, spending and trust fund obligations are taken into account at the end of every year the overall national debt increased. Notice that the CNN article quoted above described Clinton’s statement as:

~Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.~ [2c7wnh2] [my emphasis]

Selling surpluses…

The “national debt” which includes both accounting books most certainly DID NOT go down. Did Clinton actually say this, or did CNN put words in his mouth? I couldn’t find the direct quote through Google, but does it matter which is the case? Not really. This is the story we were given, and liberals unquestioningly believe it. However the numbers illustrate otherwise. Every year there was a deficit, American neighbor. That is why the “national debt” numbers increased every year. The following numbers are the total approximate amounts just owed to trust funds by the federal government. Whatever surpluses there might have been in one accounting book were erased by these obligations and other “off-budget” items in the other book. [*22rx7rs] The increase of approximately $200B from one year to the next is the equivalent to your line of credit debt in our above illustration: [5u7zvo, 252bpxg]

1998 – $1.8T 1999 – $2.0T 2000 – $2.2T 2001 – $2.4T

To be fair, this is not just a Clinton administration accounting trick. All administrations since Lyndon Johnson began the policy have played the same game. It’s all about politics as usual – manipulation. The only difference is that the Clinton administration numbers worked out to some apparent surpluses and they attempted to capitalize on these so-called surpluses for political advantage, lauding Clinton economics as superior to those of other administrations, but as you will see in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, Clintonomics was not at all what liberals and the media filter made it seem once the truisms have been separated from the liberalisms. (And to be more fair, Republicans attempted to stop this sort of fraudulent accounting, but were thwarted by Democrats. [23u3hdp] A few years later Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings attempted to expose the fraud in the administration’s budget numbers when grilling Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in 1998:

~What we’ve been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.~ [29ngx74]

Let’s get real here, American neighbor. National debt is national debt. It doesn’t matter where it comes from – it is still national debt. The government plays games with its money numbers every year. If you were to do the accounting for your business the same way with two sets of books, you would be called Enron, be convicted for fraud, and go to jail. Conservatism is about honesty. It is conservative to yell out that the emperor has no clothes. It is liberal to play along stupid with groupthink and allow yourself to be manipulated with a claim that the Clinton administration had three years of surpluses when it is just plain untrue. It is a liberalism – when their supposed truth is examined and it becomes exposed as a self-evident fraud.as

• Can you resist liberal groupthink?

.

How are those national debt lines from our above study looking to you now, American neighbor? Can you live with the fact that they get longer every single year? If you can admit to this and resist the pressure of liberal groupthink, then you have taken another step in your liberal deprogramming. Congratulations, American neighbor! You have just put your own self-interest ahead of the programmed liberal pressure of groupthink! (And you have just put yourself at odds with virtually every liberal in America.)at

Through our little critical thinking exercise combined with some judicious self-interest we have dispelled an erroneous assertion of selfish liberal groupthink. This leads to our next conclusion and principle of liberalism: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

Update: Now in latter-2013 it seems the federal books are being cooked even further. [*pnljf5c]au

• Happy for your grand slam

.

Well that was fun, wasn’t it, American neighbor? I enjoy solving problems using contextual investigation and critical thinking, don’t you? Groupthink is so pedestrian, so yesterday, so e-a-s-y. You don’t need to think for yourself, you just let the collective do your thinking for you. But where is the challenge in that? Even children enjoy games that stretch their minds. Let’s do another one!

Oh, wait! Is my enthusiasm a little misplaced here? I feel like a little league dad whose Johnny in the deciding playoff game just hit his first ever grand slam in the top of the ninth inning so his team could take the lead. It looks like his son will be the hero of the game! But his team ended up losing the game! The Liberal Giants got beat in a come from behind, Tebow-like bottom of the ninth victory by the rival Conservative Rangers! Nobody else is sharing the dad’s joy. Even little Johnny is conflicted. I’ll try not to let my exuberance get the best of me. I am just happy for your grand slam, is all, American neighbor.av

There are two kinds of liberals, American neighbor, alpha liberals and beta liberals. The first are the collaborators. These are ideologues in the most accurate sense – deliberate manipulators. They are programmed liberals that insist that two lines of unequal length are equal because to them this is how the game is played. These are the aggressive groupthinkers or alpha liberals. Ignore the reality – 800 pound gorillas don’t exist. In fact, don’t even look for the reality, just push, push, push the liberal mantra (which is of course a liberalism, but thought of as a truth). After all, it is a quite well known axiom that if a lie is repeated enough it becomes a self-actualizing truth to those who come to believe it. They perpetuate our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Plato originated the idea of the ‘noble lie’ (a liberalism related to the ‘big lie’ [*3m5gpgm]) to describe how the elite fool the masses into supporting them. The previously mentioned liberal attitudes insisting that liberals are in a fight against evil and that liberal motivations are always honorable, are used to excuse their use of the noble lie as a tool of persuasion and weapon of demagoguery. Aggressive groupthink alpha liberals propound the noble lie of Clinton creating budget surpluses to convince voters that contemporary liberal politics works and to demagogue their opposition. Reasoning doesn’t work with the alpha liberal. In fact reasoning is their enemy. Reasoning and critical thinking expose their fraudulent claims. Let me repeat the liberal principle we found above: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

The other kind of liberals are those that passively accept that two lines of unequal length are equal even though they can see with their own eyes that they are not equal (the 800 pound gorilla). These are passive groupthinkers or beta liberals. They agree with what the aggressive groupthink alpha liberal’s proclaim. They turn their head away (play stupid) so they don’t have to look at the unequal lines. They don’t want to rock the boat. Best just to play along and get along. This is where the mother robin analogy comes in handy. If you ever come across a robin’s nest with eggs or chicks the mother Robin will flop around on the ground squawking and making like it has a broken wing. It is all a distraction to divert the threat from the nest. Passive liberals often protect noble lies this way. They often know it is all a scam, but they see themselves as protecting something noble and fighting evil. This again directly relates to our first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. It begins with lying to oneself. Liberals are often aware that what they espouse is a lie, at least in the beginning, but continue to play along even with truisms staring them in the face. They think it is noble to perpetuate the noble lie, because in their minds they are fighting evil. Eventually – and it may not take long – they will not even remember that their new truth began as a lie (or has since been proven to be a lie). Playing stupid becomes their identity on that issue. This is often the tipping point in transition from being a beta liberal on an issue to becoming an aggressive alpha. Even though liberals can be divided between these two groups of aggressive and passive groupthinkers (alpha and beta), each occasionally fall within the other group depending on the issue or situation. It is quite usual to begin as a passive groupthinker beta liberal on an issue and progress into an aggressive groupthinker alpha liberal once one is comfortable with a liberalism (but thought of as a truth of course). Most liberals, however, can be predominantly pegged in one group or the other. Which kind of liberal were you, American neighbor? Were you an aggressive groupthinker alpha liberal or a passive groupthinker beta liberal?aw

• The awakening

.

On second thought don’t answer that, American neighbor. It doesn’t matter, because now there is a third kind of liberal; the conflicted, transitional liberal. That is you right now, American neighbor. You can see the lines of the 800 pound gorilla in the corner staring right at you. Your eyes are locked. I know that feeling. I know that anxiety – when something you have believed and promoted has had the legs kicked out from under it and you can no longer play stupid about it. You were proud as a liberal to be able to think to yourself that a liberal President was able to produce surpluses when even conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush couldn’t do it. You loved it when liberals made that argument – maybe even you made it. It validated your liberalism. It made you feel superior, and now you feel deflated. Sorry, American neighbor, but you had better get over it quickly, because if you have the stomach to continue reading the N.C. Essay Series, that anxiety is going to return again and again as your groupthink ideology of playing stupid is turned on its head by self-evident reason and reality. No longer will ignorance be an excuse for you. Each time, you are going to be forced into a corner surrounded by 800 pound gorillas, where you will have to decide how to respond to them. To continue with your liberal groupthink you will have to knowingly and deliberately make a calculated decision to continue playing stupid on each issue. Or you can accept the truisms I present and distance yourself from liberal groupthink, reclaiming your self-interest.

But here’s the good news, American neighbor. After a while those anxiety moments will instead turn into relief. Sooner or later you are going to learn to naturally embrace your newfound ability to acknowledge that those two groupthink lines are indeed unequal in length. By combining your new understanding of liberal principles with critical thinking you will begin to strengthen your own self-interest against the pressures of selfish liberal groupthink and develop an honest relationship with yourself. You will transform into a beta conservative where common sense and your own self-interest lead you to say no to the assertion that those two unequal groupthink lines are equal.

The Awakening

This is what I call the awakening. The awakening is when you realize that your life has been run by beliefs that were never your own. They were someone else’s truths implanted in you. Not only were they someone else’s beliefs, they were frauds masquerading as truths. At the awakening, you will realize that these fraudulent beliefs have enslaved you to an ideology of subjugation that is a matrix of lies, half-truths and manipulations, but it is even more than this. It is not just what you believe – it is how you think that is repaired with the awakening. It is a realization that you have been playing stupid by lying to yourself for a very long time. Your current anxiety is a positive sign that deprogramming is taking hold in you, American neighbor, so let’s continue and capitalize on it.ax

• Deprogramming lessons

.

The so-called Clinton surpluses are emblematic of almost everything that is wrong in America – liberalism. If there is one thing that I want you to get out of the N.C. Essay Series, American neighbor, it is that liberalism is about willingly and actively playing stupid. Liberals think that because they have been given a talking point that seemingly could not be easily refuted that they had a winning argument, but it is only because they have been directed not to listen to the counterarguments. They have been conditioned to think like a rebellious fourteen-year-old. Liberalism has convinced Americans that from 1998 to 2000 the government wasn’t still in the process of bankrupting the country, when in fact it was. The only way one can believe the government debt wasn’t still going downhill financially is to childishly ignore the reality and pretend it wasn’t so (play stupid). When almost the whole country is pretending, it is a playing stupid game on a massive scale – a societal dysfunction – liberalism. Where do you now stand on this surplus issue, American neighbor? Have you grown out of your rebellious fourteen-year-old stage, American neighbor? Can you get past your scoff response and stop lying to yourself?ay

• Three new principles

.

We have discovered in this essay three new, important liberal groupthink principles:

Attitude: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

Attitude: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie.

These principles are all about how liberals are able to hold on to unreasonable assumptions and dismiss reasonable counterarguments – play stupid. It is all about preserving selfish group-interest and preventing self-interest. Liberals live in a world of liberal ‘truths’ that when examined turn out not to be truisms, but liberalisms – self-evident frauds. Aggressive groupthinkers (alpha liberals) promote these noble lies and passive groupthinkers (beta liberals) swallow them whole. Playing stupid becomes so normal that it is experienced as genuine everyday life – one lives as a liberal despite having a core belief that is antithetical to it (the mechanics of this will be thoroughly explained in a following essay).az

• Deprogramming exercise

.

“Libberls! They’re so dadgum smart ya can’t tell ’em nuthin’! They don’t need no stupid context or critical thinkun’! They jus’ always knows what’s right is all!” I expect that is how I am supposed to think when a liberal just up and brushes aside good clean reasoning as if it were nothing more than crumbs on the breakfast table. They’ve done no research, haven’t thought the issue through, don’t have a clue about the counterarguments. But hey! Katie Couric says so! Or they read it on the Huffington Post or Daily Kos a thousand times! What the hell else does a good, right-thinkun libberl need to understand the world?!? Anyone arguin’ against those two unequal liberal lines surely must be a brain dead moron! “Pass me my Xbox!”

It’s time to grow up, American neighbor. You can’t remain fourteen years old forever. It is time for you to pledge that you will no longer accept that two unequal lines are equal when selfish liberal groupthink demands it. There is nothing noble about the noble lies of programmed liberal groupthink. At least be honest with yourself, American neighbor. Stop playing stupid. Make a commitment to yourself to defend your own self-interest and integrity, and apply critical thinking to every groupthink mantra. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Accept no liberalisms as so-called truth. Your self-interest is about you directing your own life, American neighbor. As long as you continue to capitulate to groupthink is as long as you are allowing others to direct and manipulate your life.

In the end, contemporary liberalism and conservatism are not actually ideologies in and of themselves. Yes they incorporate ideology, but are in fact definitions of attitude types. They are not specifically about ideas, but about attitudes toward ideas. Liberalism is the attitude of a voluntary slave, while conservatism is the attitude of a freeman. The conservative says, “I want to choose.” The liberal says, “You decide for me.”

Do you think you will be able to sleep tonight without your scoff reflex kicking in to high gear as you ponder the things you have learned in this essay, American neighbor? Remember your third person analysis, and tomorrow we will deal with the origin of contemporary liberalism.ba

• Humor, sort-of

.

Neverland

Once again we come to our little end of the essay humor (well not really humor, but a joke – a sick joke – or maybe just sick) but still based on the principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. And frightening:

Using fraudulent budget numbers the Clinton administration in 1999 projected a completely ridiculous and laughable budget surplus of $5.9T over the next 15 years. [yctknx2] Of course Clinton wouldn’t be President any longer, and any blame for its failure would fall on his successors – how convenient. Even his former budget director, Leon Panetta responded, “Any time you get out beyond a few years, you’re in never-never land.” If Clinton was in “never-never land” what the hell do you call what is happening today with trillion-dollar plus deficits for as far as the eye can see and a President that is so alpha liberal that he doesn’t seem to even care?!? I don’t think he is even playing stupid. He seems so out of touch with reality he is certainly well beyond that…